Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monaco–Turkey relations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sourcing has not been found to backup keep arguments. Star Mississippi 00:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco–Turkey relations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, 2 of the 3 sources are primary. Not subject to significant third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Europe, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article contains enough substantive information that it serves an encyclopedic purpose even if it doesn’t quick-pass GNG through the Google test.

Furthermore, while I wouldn’t be opposed in principle to a merge into Foreign relations of Monaco, that article is currently a bit lean and unless someone volunteers to merge everything useful in the most of the Monaco–XYZ relations articles, I fail to see how it would be practical or helpful.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide actual third party sources that meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually admitting it fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful and I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it does appear notable enough for me. I agree with RadioactiveBoulevardier that its purpose is justifiable and it provides just enough information.

Brat Forelli🦊 22:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide actual third party sources that demonstrate GNG is met, because I could not find any. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "its purpose is justifiable", how does this article meet notability guidelines? LibStar (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should never have been prodded. Prod is only for trivial cases. This is not trivial! gidonb (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No one arguing in favour of keeping has provided any secondary sources so unfortunately those keep comments will have to be disregarded. Article contains no useful encyclopedic content and there doesn't seem to be anything that can be added. Also, what is there to merge? AusLondonder (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.